and help to keep the site free for all
24 hrs in Police custody
- Thread starter Ruffy
- Start date
- Messages
- 837
- Name
- Daron
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No comment! 
Gary Coyle
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 12,654
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I recognised that woman from somewhere, been racking my brains, i do wish she would have sneaked in through my window and offered me sex and showed me her boobs though, why would you call the cops for that!!!!!!!
Lynton
awkward customer
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
She sounded a bit of a bunny boiler though!
- Messages
- 7,408
- Edit My Images
- Yes
She certainly seemed like a fruit loop short of a box that's for sure
The only people he'd have helped was the police if he talked. His solicitor gave him good advice to answer no comment.
He was found not guilty of murder. The solicitor did a good job.
I think it was conspiracy to murder but yes you're right he was advised well. They featured the show on Gogglebox on Channel 4 and everyone was convinced he was guilty and getting annoyed at him saying no comment. I think people watch too much TV where people sing like canaries to the police with no solicitor present.
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 12,352
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
Solicitors often advise their clients to decline to answer all questions when first arrested. Obviously this is unhelpful to the police but then it isn't their job to help the police.
Whether that advice is good or bad must surely depend, not only on the alleged offence, but on the arrested person too. Someone who has no experience of being interviewed by police and who just gone through a traumatic experience may be better off with the mouth firmly zipped, whether innocent or guilty. It may be better to collect thoughts and get the sequence of events into the right order before talking, or it may be better to answer all questions fully - I would think that the solicitor is the person best qualified to make that judgement.
As for having to spend months on bail or on remand, surely that's down to the speed that the police move at?
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
they try to be sneaky and chat about various things before actually asking the proper questions then switch back to irrelavent questions. it's to try and trick you into answering hence why you say no comment to everything. if you ever get arrested you say absolutely nothing until you speak to a solicitor. hearing the no comment doesn't make for good tv but the defence lawyers job is to make sure the police/cps have enough evidence to prove the crime not give them it.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
He would, if his story was true avoided 4 months on remand if he'd come up with that story to start with. The fact he didn't led to him being charged, simply because the evidence was there, and he'd done nothing to rebut it, all his excuses coming after disclosure.
I'm sorry, but his solicitor helped him not one bit giving him that advice. Whether it was true or not isn't the point I made, it's simply that not saying anything led to him being charged. Had he come out with the story at the start, then there would have been very little chance of that happening. He did time on remand because of that idiot solicitor. He found not, because he had a good barrister.
Having investigated crime a fair amount, that's not unusual. I can sit there, know full well someone didn't do it, and listen to a solicitor tell their client to say nothing. If he says nothing and the evidence is against him for want some form of rebuttal, excuse, evidence that he was somewhere else, then he gets charged, and in many cases convicted.
Just because I was a Police officer does not mean I assume everyone I arrested was guilty, but if a suspect doesn't help himself, how in hell's name can I row him out?
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, it's to represent his clients interests. Those interests now that comment and inference can be drawn from not answering a question, is to provide rebuttal. He had that, his evidence to the Court, had it been given at interview would have stopped it dead.
That solicitor thought he was being clever, he wasn't.
No, after charge, the evidence is done and dusted. The Courts system is slow, always has been, but it is far quicker than it used to be. 2 years wasn't unusual for a wait for Crown Court hearing in the 80's and 90's.
Last edited:
He did say she had nicked some of his lens,i am at that age where my lens are more important
Lynton
awkward customer
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
The one the week before was odd as well. Guy up for conspiracy to murder someone elses bf. They triagulated the calls, had the mobile no, call records, box with IMEI matching on top of the wardrobe, and he walked. Other 3 banged up. Now ok, don't know the full facts, however came across as guiltier than a puppy sitting by a pile of poo. And as for the solicitor, whilst he was good at his job, smug b*****d.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree with Bernie , if you are innocent and have a clear proof of it for f***s sake say so - sitting there going no comment no comment like a retarded parrot is not a good idea
course if you are guilty its a great plan not to incriminate yourself , and if you are innocent with no alibi or evidence in your favour then again it may be preferable to keep your mouth shut but the advice to say nowt in all circs is flawed
course if you are guilty its a great plan not to incriminate yourself , and if you are innocent with no alibi or evidence in your favour then again it may be preferable to keep your mouth shut but the advice to say nowt in all circs is flawed
- Messages
- 1,009
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The reason he didn't come up with an explanation at the start was because he was guilty and had to wait for further disclosure so he could build a story to fit the evidence. If he'd come out with a story at the start that the police could then disprove, it would show him to be lying which the prosecuting barrister at court would have a field day with. No commenting means he can't be shown to be lying and if the court doesn't draw an inference, there's no downside.
If the magistrates/courts ever start to finally draw inferences from no comment interview a lot more guilty people will be found 'guilty'.
Anyone who 'no comments' is guilty, just a matter of proving it beyond reasonable doubt. The solicitors know inferences are rarely draw so 'no comment' is the best course of action.
And don't forget, people aren't found 'innocent', they're found 'not guilty'. A subtle but telling difference.
If the magistrates/courts ever start to finally draw inferences from no comment interview a lot more guilty people will be found 'guilty'.
Anyone who 'no comments' is guilty, just a matter of proving it beyond reasonable doubt. The solicitors know inferences are rarely draw so 'no comment' is the best course of action.
And don't forget, people aren't found 'innocent', they're found 'not guilty'. A subtle but telling difference.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
They do, can and have been able to do so for many years.
The words of a caution now are:
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on it court. Anything you do say will be put into writing and given in evidence"
The effect of that is that if/when someone goes no comment, or makes no answer in an interview, it can be commented on by the prosecution. His reasons for not putting forward a rebuttal or alibi when given an opportunity can be questions in court, and thats not an easy one for the defence to answer to.
In this case, he gave a written response, but of course that was only in answer to some of the points he already been asked about. None of which really helped him at all.
It seems that his defence was on a different tact, and from what it said in the program, I doubt it would be easy to disprove. But he/his solicitor put him firmly in the poo with the no comment interview. Had he given the answers he later used as his defence, I doubt he would have been charged. There really wasn't anything apart from his evasive statements to go with, but those very statements tends to show him to be dishonest, and thats what got him charged.
- Messages
- 1,009
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm very aware of the caution, what it means and the consequences at court of going no comment. Whilst courts CAN draw inferences, they rarely seem to, that was my point. So no comment interviews are basically a risk free tactic for the defence, rather than having risk associated when the court draw a negative inference.
His solicitor didn't put him in the poo by going no comment - he couldn't give the account he ultimately went with without hearing the police's evidence first. If he gave any account at all, he was risking the police being able to disprove it.
His solicitor didn't put him in the poo by going no comment - he couldn't give the account he ultimately went with without hearing the police's evidence first. If he gave any account at all, he was risking the police being able to disprove it.
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Great bit of googleage - shame its for interview not arrest and starts with the phrase "this interview is being tape recorded" - page 27.
If the caution is being given in the street on arrest or indeed anywhere other than in the interview room then bernie is indeed quite correct - as one might expect given that he's a police officer
If the caution is being given in the street on arrest or indeed anywhere other than in the interview room then bernie is indeed quite correct - as one might expect given that he's a police officer
If you are up on a conspiracy to murder charge and your solicitor advises you to answer no comment then you would have to be a fool to do otherwise. Prison will be full of people who thought they could talk their way out of it or have ignored their solicitor's advice. Let the police try and build a convincing case, don't help them do it. They aren't your friends in these situations.
- Messages
- 1,009
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The caution upon arrest (in England and Wales) is, "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on it court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." It's the same in interview. The only time it differs is on charge. The bit about it being put in writing I assume is from several years ago or in Scotland.
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Difference is Moosey, I linked it...try it some time.
And both cautions, arrest and interview, are the same.
And with the greatest of respect to Bernie, he is a retired police office. Occassionally things change.
As you were
Last edited:
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Except that bernie was based in England i believe so probably not - as a police officer not tape recording an interview is bound to write down any statement given we are only arguing about semantics anyway
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
While you are correct Viv, PACE Code G. Para 3.6 says
"
3.6 Minor deviations from the words of any caution given in accordance with this Code do
not constitute a breach of this Code, provided the sense of the relevant caution is
preserved."
Adding in something, which at both arrest and charge is factually accurate, and in the case of interview not necessary, doesn't change the sense.
You're also right to mention to BSM, that all the cautions are now the same, and have been since the demise of Judges Rules and the introduction of PACE. Although the 'new' caution including the warning that inferences can be drawn was a later change.
BSM
Interviews have been taped since (in my case, where the station I was at was part of the pre launch) PACE, which came into effect ion 1985 ish. But they were a different set of cautions originally similar to Judges Rules until the law changed on prosecution being able to comment on and invite inference to be drawn from not answering, or saying "No Comment". When the new caution came in. However, at the time, "Put into writing" was included, as at time of arrest and charge any reply was put into writing. I have no idea when it changed again, but it's irrelevant anyway, see Code G para 3.6 above.
"
3.6 Minor deviations from the words of any caution given in accordance with this Code do
not constitute a breach of this Code, provided the sense of the relevant caution is
preserved."
Adding in something, which at both arrest and charge is factually accurate, and in the case of interview not necessary, doesn't change the sense.
You're also right to mention to BSM, that all the cautions are now the same, and have been since the demise of Judges Rules and the introduction of PACE. Although the 'new' caution including the warning that inferences can be drawn was a later change.
BSM
Interviews have been taped since (in my case, where the station I was at was part of the pre launch) PACE, which came into effect ion 1985 ish. But they were a different set of cautions originally similar to Judges Rules until the law changed on prosecution being able to comment on and invite inference to be drawn from not answering, or saying "No Comment". When the new caution came in. However, at the time, "Put into writing" was included, as at time of arrest and charge any reply was put into writing. I have no idea when it changed again, but it's irrelevant anyway, see Code G para 3.6 above.
Last edited:
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
wheras you work for va shipping company .. with the greatest of respect my money is on him having a greater chance of being right .
oh and by the way when I use google I always provide a link .. its required to protect TP on copyright violations if nowt else, the reason there has been no link on the occasions on which you have accused me of using google, is because I didn't - some of us have life experience and education to draw on for our opinions rather than relying on google - really matty should have change that term to "vived" or "ruthed"
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
